Appendix A. Map of Cambodia.

Map of Cambodia

Appendix B. Conceptual framework of the index system of human well-being (HWB).

Conceptual framework of the index system of human well-being (HWB)

Appendix D. A table showing standardized coefficients of the structural equation model for HWB indices.

A table showing standardized coefficients of the structural equation model for HWB indices

Appendix C. Tables showing internal consistency and reliability test for HWB dimension of basic material for good life, dimension of security, dimension of health, dimension of good social relations, and for dimension of freedom of choice and action.

Tables showing internal consistency and reliability test for HWB dimension of basic material for good life, dimension of security, dimension of health, dimension of good social relations, and for dimension of freedom of choice and action

Conserving Critical Sites for Biodiversity Provides Disproportionate Benefits to People

<div><p>Protecting natural habitats in priority areas is essential to halt the loss of biodiversity. Yet whether these benefits for biodiversity also yield benefits for human well-being remains controversial. Here we assess the potential human well-being benefits of safeguarding a global network of sites identified as top priorities for the conservation of threatened species. Conserving these sites would yield benefits – in terms of a) climate change mitigation through avoidance of CO₂ emissions from deforestation; b) freshwater services to downstream human populations; c) retention of option value; and d) benefits to maintenance of human cultural diversity – significantly exceeding those anticipated from randomly selected sites within the same countries and ecoregions. Results suggest that safeguarding sites important for biodiversity conservation provides substantial benefits to human well-being.</p> </div

Location of the global network of priority sites and their relative performance compared to country mean.

<p>Comparison of the delivery of the ecosystem services for each of the priority sites to the mean±95% confidence interval within the same countries. The ecosystem services included are a) climate mitigation through CO₂ emissions avoided, b) water quality, and c) cultural value as number of languages. Green sites perform better than national means for all three services (9%), yellow for two (35%), orange for one (45%), and red for none (11%). (Option value is excluded as mean±95% confidence interval could not be derived, see supporting methods).</p

Ecosystem service delivery from priority sites compared to random.

<p>Estimated ecosystem service delivery from protection of the global network of priority sites (n = 524) compared to benefits expected at random from conservation of network of 524 sites within the same countries and ecoregions. a) Climate change mitigation through CO₂ emissions avoided (estimated using national deforestation rates, thus only the country null model is used), b) Freshwater services (water quality and potential water provision), c) Option value measured as number of narrow-ranged genera (range less than 50,000 km² and 1,100 km²), and d) Cultural value measured as the number of languages and threatened languages (less than 10,000 speakers). Columns denote 95% percentile and error bars denote 99% percentile of random networks of 524 sites in ecoregions and countries with priority sites (n = 10,000).</p

Top 20 EEZ regions by total priority area (km²).

<p>Total priority area was determined through the union of priority areas based on richness, range rarity, and proportional range rarity (<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0082898#pone-0082898-g003" target="_blank">Fig. 3A–C</a>). Calculations for the United States do not include EEZ regions around Alaska or Hawaii, which are calculated separately. <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0082898#pone.0082898.s003" target="_blank">Table S3</a> has statistics for all EEZ areas and further statistics on priority areas by richness, endemism and proportional range rarity. <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0082898#pone.0082898.s004" target="_blank">Table S4</a> has statistics by FAO region for ABNJ priority areas.</p

Priority areas for marine biodiversity conservation

<p>for (<b>A</b>) species richness, (<b>B</b>) range rarity, and (<b>C</b>) proportional range rarity within EEZs and ABNJ. Orange areas denote priority areas with high human impacts and green denotes areas with low human impacts. Total area of priorities is 7,233,550 km² within EEZs and 9,894,560 km² within ABNJ (<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0082898#pone.0082898.s005" target="_blank">Tables S5</a>, <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0082898#pone.0082898.s006" target="_blank">S6</a>).</p

Intensity and extent of climate (red), fishing (green), ocean-based (blue) pollution, and land-based impacts (orange) as a percentage of total impacts within highly impacted priority areas.

<p>Patterns are shown for priority areas that were designated based on (<b>A</b>) richness within EEZs (<b>B</b>) and ABNJ, (<b>C</b>) range rarity within EEZ and (<b>D</b>) ABNJ, and (<b>E</b>) proportional range rarity within EEZs and (<b>F</b>) ABNJ. Zero values are not shown.</p